OT canon may be closed, but existed in more than one version by the time of the first Christians, who took the broader collection.

Matt SIngleton

Pay attention to the maccabees quotations in the 1st link

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people” 1 Macc. 9:27

Now, do you know what TaNaKh means?

Torah (five books of Moses)

Nabiim (prophets)

Ketubim (writings).

This means that though writers of Maccabees were inspired, they were not prophets. Like writers of the 4 books of Kings (or of Samuel and Kings, in Jewish 2-book division of this portion), or of Chronicles.

This means they were socially not acting like Eliah or morally not acting like Jeremiah.

Not that they were not inspired.

Second link:

"How can you drink vodka or whiskey in moderation?"

3cl of either in a cup, fill up the rest with coffee or tea after taste.

[or, in hotter wheather, perhaps mineral water or a soda]

My gramp was a distiller, I will never take the anti-alcohol "morality" of that link. Now, I am reading on past the personal attack on a man very correctly earning his livelihood in a liquor store, bbiam.

Matt SIngleton

just as correctly as selling weed. btw, this fellow would live Christianity of all types a couple years later.

I am not sure selling weed is in all cases forbidden, I am sure selling whisky and vodka can be done wthout offending moderation in drinking.

Other example. You have eaten or you are going to eat. You take a 3cl of anis liquor, dilute in water and drink that before or after meal.

ALSO not drunkeness (and is very appropriate observation on how liquor is used in France).

Matt SIngleton

Well, you would have to know the guy (jay Dyer) I was dealing with. He is a very offensive arrogant individual who attacks in almost everyway he can. So I have to be rough with him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[To link] "They did not contain the apocyrpha in the traditional sense. The apocrypha was always separate because they were not translating from the LXX they were translating from the hebrew which did not contain the apocrypha."

In NT LXX is not TRANSLATED from, but QUOTED from.

A Greek book citing a Greek book.

Hebrews quotes Jeremiah in a way that echoes LXX and contradicts the current Hebrew text. Rabbis have even called its author dishonest as "misquoting Jeremiah". No, St Paul or St Barnabas were quoting the Jeremiah text they thought correct - from LXX.

[To comment on Jay] You might be calling me "arrogant" in a moment.

That is basically what is done when Catholics and Orthdox are loyal to the teaching of their Churches (the true and the near true) rather than to Protestant non-Churches. Protestants call them arrogant.

Being rough about good points does not equate to inventing false one's to be rough.

[To link again] Back to LXX:

"If Jesus read from LXX and not the Hebrew Bible, why did he refer to the Hebrew Bible arrangement? Jots and tittles are not part of the Greek language but the Hebrew. Divisions like the Law, Prophets and Psalms are not found in LXX."

Jesus was obviously familiar with the Hebrew arrangement as well.

Also He had to know very well what His Apostles were facing from Pentecost on.

That is, He must have told them if LXX was good or bad. From what Church has taught since, it can't have been the latter.

Plus his Hebrew text may have been closer to LXX or at least Vulgate than to today's Masoretic.

Matt SIngleton

btw, At some point I know that the purpose of the group is about geo-centricity not differences of catholicism protestantism. You go ahead and post up any links you like on that topic. The purpose of the video is not to focus on our canon differences. It is focusing on natural revelation. Which protestant OEC's call the "67th book of the bible. I am saying that natural revelation is no excuse to espouse evolution or the big bang theory. We can agree to disagree on the canon and you are welcome to take up the topic with me on personal message.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, ok.

Wonderful, one can tentatively chime in and say "there is no 74th book of the Bible (unless certain books accepted by EO belong*)."

Matt SIngleton

yeah basically

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I actually got that, but since Bible and its canon are holier than your point, I think I did right to correct the mistake on the more important point.

* Council of Trent defined canon inclusively, against Protestant cuttings out, I don't know any formula of it which would directly be condemning of EO versions of canon too.